My name is Rose and I am a Canadian freelance writer. I love to tackle human rights issues and anything related to the betterment of society and our planet.
For a sorted directory of my articles: RoseWrites.netboard.me
Love to write too? Join me on here on InfoBarrel.

InfoBarrel is a writing platform for non-fiction, reference-based, informative content. Opinions expressed by InfoBarrel writers are their own.

"...there are literally thousands of questionable and potentially harmful websites associating themselves with my subdomain. For every piece of quality content I write and publish on that subdomain there are thousands of spammy, malware-infested websites with my subdomain as part of their URL or content."

Marisa Wright's Response

In a nutshell, she felt these sites have "nothing to gain from bringing HubPages down."

Oddly, Marisa Wright wasn't alarmed by this discovery and she tried to cast doubt on what numerous authors know to be true. She wrote in brackets, "if we accept the theory that links from poor quality sites can harm a domain."

Her next sentence sure sounded like a sales pitch to me:

"There will always be spammers and scammers looking for a steady source of material for their schemes - and as other article sites have declined or died, HubPages is now easily the best such source."

Got that? HubPages is now easily the best such source. Go tell your scumbag scammer and scraper friends today!

After numerous posts from upset authors, Marisa Wright chimed in again. She agreed with their observations and blamed this recent influx on Squidoo:

"Yes, HubPages attracts the scrapers in droves, and it is even worse since Squidoo disappeared. Let's face it, the scrapers are running out of article-writing sites to scrape from!"

Wonder What Google Thinks?

When I looked up Link Schemes[2] in Google's Webmaster Tools Help section, it stated:

It includes any behavior that manipulates links to your site or outgoing links from your site.

Links that weren’t editorially placed or vouched for by the site’s owner on a page, otherwise known as unnatural links, can be considered a violation of our guidelines.

Consider this point made by Shaun Anderson in his article Free Link Building Tips For 2015:

"Note that Google ignores most of your links, and will reward any site with domain authority, over time, based on the ‘quality’ of the links you have managed to have pointed at your site."[3]

Marie Haynes stated in her August 2014 Moz Blog article Negative SEO: Should You Be Worried? If Attacked, What Should You Do?:

"If you have a history of doing a lot of unnatural linking yourself then you could fall victim as well, as Google may not be able to tell the difference between your unnatural links and the attack links."[4]

"If you are at all worried about someone trying to do negative SEO or it looks like there's some weird bot that's building up a bunch of links to your site and you have no idea where it came from, that's the perfect time to use disavow as well. I wouldn't worry about going ahead and disavowing links even if you don't have a message [penalty] in your webmaster console."[5]

But wait, didn't Paul Edmondson also mention that HubPages had a couple of manual penalties?

Yes. In a forum thread titled Why Did Hundreds of Hubs Become Unfeatured for Quality Today?, Paul Edmondson stated, "Recently, Google put a manual action on a couple of subdomains for pure spam."[8]

The final word in Jennifer Slegg's article? Keep an eye on backlinks, especially new ones and disavow poor quality or suspicious backlinks before they can have any impact on your site.

So, one might expect that Paul Edmondson would be freaked out by the enormous number of malware-infested, spammy websites using HubPages and author subdomains in their URLs or content, right?

Nah, Paul Edmondson Isn't Worried

"I don't believe our site is getting hurt in the rankings"

Credit: RoseWrites on InfoBarrel

Wonder Why He Isn't Worried?

Hmm, could it be that the top content is keeping the HubPages domain afloat? Have you heard? There's a new and improved Editor's Choice/Hub of the Day program[7] on HubPages.

The benefits for writers are . . um, ah, nothing.

Credit: RoseWrites on InfoBarrel / All rights reserved

This Exchange Sums it Up

Credit: RoseWrites on InfoBarrel

And I Couldn't Leave Out These

Credit: RoseWrites on InfoBarrel

Did Writer Fox 'Strike a Nerve' I Wonder?

Credit: RoseWrites on InfoBarrel

Wondering What Your Options Are?

Sure, you can stay on HubPages and keep your subdomain which will be under constant attack from scammers, scrapers, and scumbags. You'll never receive Hub of the Day or win any Editor's Choice awards.

Or you can join the EC program[9] where you need to:

Go above and beyond the best articles on the web

Use some "grouping feature" on HubPages (instead of blocks of links to your own Hubs)

Remember an opt-out option is available BUT for some reason it states: "You need to wait 60 days before you can do so again."

Oh but wait, I almost forgot, there is one thing you get to keep. The Learning Center states:

Hubbers [authors] with at least five Editor's Choice Hubs will receive an accolade on their profile!

In Summary

I think the truth is that Google has punished HubPages - and harshly. When I discovered that my Pinterest traffic was sinking and why, the following commentary between Kylyssa and Barbara Kay confirmed my suspicions.

Comments

"HubPages is now easily the best such source" of material for spammers and scammers - this is in their own words. Wow. HubPages is reminding me so much of Squidoo - which probably means the website is doomed.

Reply to this Comment

I know, it's almost as though she was proud of it. I have a hunch that HubPages is getting more revenue from black hatters, scrapers, plagiarists, and scammers than from advertising companies.
And it's strange that almost every time I check, someone is complaining about an annoying ad. The staff call them "rogue" ads, yet I don't see these rogue ads appearing on InfoBarrel.
I just can't believe how many people can't 'see though' some of these decisions. I mean, it would be a whole lot easier to get rid of 5% of the garbage on there than to have the top content "edited." Unless, of course, some third party is paying HubPages big bucks for edited versions of top content to scrape or something.
I found it worrisome that the edited version of Aneegma's work had no sign that she authored it. I'm also reading posts that unfinished work is somehow being published.
I just hope no one is providing HubPages with their SSN or other tax information.
Thanks again for dropping by and commenting, Jonathan. Your support means more than you know,
Rose

Reply to this Comment

Reply to this Comment

Thanks for this information. Since my old articles from Squidoo were transferred to this site, I have not written any new articles. I just visit it from time to time. I am not very comfortable with Hubpages, so I seldom logged in there.

Reply to this Comment

I'm a bit confused with Edmondson's words above about reporting the copied stuff to Google's ad team to disable the earning ability of the copied stuff. Wouldn't you want the copied stuff removed as well?
This mad hattery is getting a bit much especially with not caring attitudes from some of the site participants. Thanks for the details. Awesome work.

Reply to this Comment

Good catch Browna86 - it's yet another 'subtle' indication that Paul E. doesn't care at all that Hubs are copied. I personally think he's getting more revenue from scrapers than advertisers.
Authors on HubPages and their work mean almost zero to the Edmondsons. All they care about is profit. This was sadly apparent when no apology was offered to Aneegma - who has since left HubPages according to her post in their forum.
I appreciate your kind words and support so much, thank you for dropping by Browna86.
Take good care,
Rose